Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Observing the gamma in the wild

Whether we find them amusing or aggravating, the vagaries of human socio-sexual behavior are always fascinating. The patterns that Roissy, Athol, Dalrock, Rollo, and others have identified continue to reveal themselves again and again in a fractal manner; we see the same patterns repeating themselves on both the micro and macro levels.

One of the key weaknesses of the gamma is an inability to maintain frame. He is customarily reacting to the frame set by others. Roissy places particular importance on this in the pickup and text Game arenas, but as you'll see in a moment here, it applies everywhere.

Now, here is John Scalzi's initial response to discovering that a new verb has been coined in what I suppose we could call his "honor" by the Dark Lord of the Crimson Arts.

I would certainly agree that I don’t conform to their expectations of manhood. This is of course a feature, not a bug. As I wrote yesterday on Twitter, “Today I will offend racist sexist
homophobic dipshits simply by EXISTING. Evidence of a life lived
correctly, I would say.”

This is a calm and reasonable response, superficially a masculine one. But look a little closer and three of the major hallmarks of the sniveling gamma can be identified, the departure from objective reality, the passive-aggression, and the self-justification. The problem, of course, isn't that he doesn't conform to our expectations of manhood; he is actually conforming quite closely to our expectations of his behavior given his socio-sexual rank. The problem is that he is ineptly attempting to reframe by making a clearly false claim. It should be manifestly obvious that Roissy and I, among many others, are not offended by his mere existence, but rather, we are AMUSED by his BEHAVIOR. As I wrote today on Twitter, pointing and laughing is not an indication of taking offense, it is an indication of contempt.

Notice that whereas the ALPHA points (links and identifies) and laughs (is genuinely amused), the gamma avoids (refuses to link, refuses to even name), and alternates between feigned laughter, feigned indifference, and genuine anger. Confrontation and contempt are alpha. Evasion and sniping from safety are gamma.

Given that the gamma male in question is a chubby little nerdman, this is unlikely the first time that he has experienced contempt from his sociosexual superiors. And given that he is more intelligent than the average, it is even more unlikely that he does not recognize that contempt when it is directed at him. But instead of admitting it and confronting it in a straightforward manner, as alphas, betas, and deltas would do, the gamma attempts to create his own reality and transforms the situation into an imaginary one in which he is secretly the master.

The astute reader will notice this is exactly what gammas do when they are confronted by the unhappy news that the saintly girl on the pedestal they adore from below is happily playing slutbunny for those dreadful alphas whom he believes are unworthy of her.

But false frames are difficult to maintain, particularly for gammas because they are less emotionally stable than other men. This is why Scalzi lurches wildly back-and-forth between calmly attempting to pretend that he is genuinely amused and enjoying the attention to remaining above the fray to implying threats and plotting with his fellow rabbits to try to figure out how to make it stop. It is particularly informative to count the number of times he refers to some form of insecurity in his most recent post; like women, gammas tend to be solipsistic and habitually project their own psychological tendencies upon others. Even if we accept the absurd notion that two manifestly self-confident individuals such as Roissy and me possess "deep and abiding insecurities", is it even remotely credible that all of the thousands of our readers who are simply enjoying the entertainment are "equally insecure"? He is attacking the readers for the same reason the bullied kid at school thinks everyone hates him, when most of the other kids don't know his name and couldn't care less about him.

The funniest part, in my estimation, was this phrase: "The pathology of it is pretty standard elementary-school taunting dynamic...." Which is partially true, as while there is nothing pathological about it, the rhetorical dynamic is no different at the elementary-school level than the adult one. But since he recognizes the dynamic, he should have been able to recognize the parts being played by the various players. It would not surprise me in the slightest if his response tends to echo the advice given to him by his mother some 30+ years ago.

Don't cry, Johnny. They're only being mean to you because they're jealous of how smart you are. They're just insecure!

It can't possibly be because they are cruel and predatory, and you made the mistake of asking for it, can it? Gammas aren't well-suited for conflict with alphas, (much less sigmas), because their instability, reality-avoidance, and passive-aggressiveness, and need to justify themselves renders it all but impossible for them to understand the alpha game of direct challenge-and-submit. Gammas usually have enough sense to avoid challenging their socio-sexual superiors and stay out of their way, but because John a) doesn't understand socio-sexual dynamics, and b) overestimated the importance of his status in his field, he badly misjudged the situation and thereby has ensured us a considerable amount of entertainment and socio-sexual education in the future.

But understand that it's not the particular gamma who matters in the context of Alpha Game. That's completely beside the point. What matters is the way in which the behavior observed is reliably indicative of the rank in the social hierarchy. How do you behave when you are confronted? How do you behave when you find yourself in a conflict of your own making? How do you behave when you find yourself in a conflict with a woman versus one with another man?

The more you learn to confront reality, address it head on, and refuse to flinch simply because it is difficult, painful, or unpleasant, the more others will come to respect you, take you seriously, and even submit to you. It's not always an easy thing to do; people retreat into their imaginary subjective realities in preference to it for a reason. But you simply cannot control yourself or your environment by denying who you are, where in the hierarchy you happen to be, and what you find yourself facing.

UPDATE: Speaking of the reality-avoidance, what on Earth is Scalzi babbling about here? I have never backtracked in the slightest; quite to the contrary, I have repeatedly insisted that his claims of satire must be false due to his uncanny ability to get into the mind of a rapist. Credulous unsophisticate? I'm the only one who appears to see through his blown cover as cover! Between the cross-dressing, the rape confession, the Photoshop narcissism and the obsession with fecal matter, he's one step away from being Buffalo Bill.

88 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I would describe myself as a gamma and this article really hit home, especially the part about the flinching when socially challenged. Recognizing a social challenge like that isn't directly linked to intelligence however, as a kid i had a hard time recognizing if someone was playing a game or being honest with me. Such things are correlated to aspergery behavior but im assuming most people here think such a designation is bullshit or just a lame excuse.

Anyway, imagine my surprise when people actually back down when you look 'm straight in the eye with a smirk on your face while defending your position. I don't know if anyone will believe me but to me this is absolutely retarded that someone will backdown and agree with you not based on the coherence of your argument but because of some strange social posturing that animals do in the zoo. It boggles the mind.

Keep up the good work, it's interesting to hear the perspective of a natural, i read your blog with pleasure.

I wonder if Gammas in addition to sharing with women susceptibility to solipsism and passive-aggressivenes are also to rhetoric as well. You go to his site and that's all you find. If Stalin or Hitler came up to him and said two plus two equals four, they'd scream that they were completely insane and wrong. These people cannot think in the abstract and think axiomatically. They think you're a jerk, therefore you're wrong.

I enjoy putting myself in situations where I can get to practice this stuff (uh, hopefully without fighting, since I'm not a big guy or a good fighter). But that's why the business world is so useful here. When you're negotiating with your boss, with a car dealer, with the contractor who's trying to explain away a 100% cost overrun... all of these are instances where you can either flinch or hold your ground and maintain the frame.

If Scalzi wanted to "grow" as a Man and develop out of Gamma - how should he be reacting to this situation instead? What would show you that he is "confronting reality" and thereby earn your respect?

That's a good question and an even better exercise. I have an answer, but before I give it, let's see what answers you guys come up with so that we can see how well you're grasping and applying the principles.

"The more you learn to confront reality, address it head on, and refuse to flinch simply because it is difficult, painful or unpleasant, the more others will come to respect you, take you seriously, and even submit to you"

Great line. Obviously applicable in the socio-sexual hierarchy, but really it is an important tool for all aspects of life.

He wouldn't be able to rise from gammadom to the level where he could shoot the shite as a peer (like Dominic from another type of fundamental disagreement) so initially the best he could do is genuinely not talk about you (instead of endlessly talking about how he's not talking about you) and have some kind of stock answer like "I'm not discussing the issue of Vox Day" when someone actually presses him on it.

That's a good question and an even better exercise. I have an answer, but before I give it, let's see what answers you guys come up with so that we can see how well you're grasping and applying the principles.

I think number one would be understanding that you are not the center of the world, regardless of what your mother told you. Other people are not spending all their waking hours obsessing about how to get back at you.

Also, either undergo an honest assessment of yourself as a man, or stop attempting to mock those who have already made that assessment. You don't want to be perceived as a gamma bitch? Stop acting like one.

Obviously stop running to the mallet of kittens or whatever gay name you've given to banning comments. If someone challenges you, engage them.

Finally, get rid of the cats and join a gym with a good set of free weights. Do deadlifts, squats, bench press, pullups/rows.

Cats are a dead giveaway of gammaness. Some dogs can be too, especially with a body weight under 20 pounds. That weight is my cutoff between a real dog and some twisted approximation of one. I own two boxers. They keep my sons safe.

If Scalzi wanted to "grow" as a Man and develop out of Gamma - how should he be reacting to this situation instead? What would show you that he is "confronting reality" and thereby earn your respect?

I think the first thing he could do is comment over at VP. Just walk in to the den and write:

Ha! You got me. As much as it pains me to say this, you got me. I am insecure about my status, and, often, my ambition to be liked causes problems. Some of the things that have been said about me are genuinely funny, but the truth is they hurt my feelings.

But it isn't you, it's me: I'm doing something wrong, I don't like the reaction it is causing and I'm going to do something about it. I'm not going to ask you to lay off, because it clearly amuses you and has taught me something. What that is, I don't know yet, but I'm going to find out.

Then, the fellow needs to go find out.

Now, I've never seen a gamma do this (there are, after all spoils in gammadom - meager ones, but semi-sustaining), but I know a young omega who basically responded sort of like this to a community college class that teased him.

It was pretty neat to watch his status go to delta (skipping gamma) by the end of the semester, just by playing it straight up. It wasn't exactly B. Rabbit vs. Papa Doc in 8 Mile (no dramatic opponent, for one thing), but the change was there.

How we define a frame has several benefits. (1) It can solve his problem. (2) It can lessen the psychological penalty. (3) It can give him an advantage.

I'm not saying you can't show contempt and you can continue to make things difficult for him. He is merely working within his own framework out of necessity and comfort. Not everyone thinks alike. The fact that you can continue to hammer him is a feature, not a bug.

Not realistically possible. Remember, to him, we basically are demons who torture baby bunnies, due to the blue pill set of truth-claims that he believes. He couldn't approach us with the mindset that you propose, because it would be the ultimate thought crime to everybody with whom he currently has status.

Your solution would assume that he has already changed his mind about those truth-claims.

The funniest part, in my estimation, was this phrase: "The pathology of it is pretty standard elementary-school taunting dynamic...." Which is partially true, as while there is nothing pathological about it, the rhetorical dynamic is no different at the elementary-school level than the adult one. But since he recognizes the dynamic, he should have been able to recognize the parts being played by the various players. It would not surprise me in the slightest if his response tends to echo the advice given to him by his mother some 30+ years ago.

Don't cry, Johnny. They're only being mean to you because they're jealous of how smart you are. They're just insecure!

What advice would you give to the father of a son who has gamma tendencies? My son is physically attractive, but naturally introspective and introverted.* I can see kids wanting to like him, but he pushes them away.

* I am that way, too, so it might be genetic. Took me a long time to recognize my own gamma tendencies, let alone address them. My damned mom was no help at all -- she gave the usual crappy "just be yourself" advice.

I knew I was on the right track when feminists in my life started becoming inexplicably and increasingly infuriated at me. If Scalzi had the balls to anger the invisible eye of his feminist masters that would be a good first step.

For starters, he would have to want to change, and that is extremely unlikely, because he hates - and rightfully fears - men like us who confront, debate, laugh derisively, clearly state our observation that women should not be allowed to vote, and run over cats when we get the chance.

That's a good question and an even better exercise. I have an answer, but before I give it, let's see what answers you guys come up with so that we can see how well you're grasping and applying the principles.

In the interests of an exercise and learning something...

I haven't been following all this. Put me in the 'aggravated' camp in terms of my response to Scalzi.

However, this is complicated. I just looked him up and have learned that his main business is writing. So I guess for him it's not like can totally stop writing. Or can he?

Maybe he should just announce on his blog that the recent arguments have triggered a lot of introspection, and he's closing down the blog, but will remain available for his sci-fi duties at the other sites, and will concentrate on his main work. Then,

2. General self-improvement.

I mean, he's sold a lot, got some awards, has a wife and a kid. Not bad. What's the problem with a retreat from this? He just embarrassing himself it seems.

That said I suppose the better path would be try to filter out the rabbit-type stuff and boil it down to those (leftist?) points that he really believes in and argue them. And just trust that VD and others will be true to their words and let the rabbit stuff go and argue those points. Just let go.

So I see his options as:Best: Omit a lot of stuff and try to argue real stuff like what is racism, what is sexism, what is homophobia, and just stick to a dialectic on that.Not bad (discretion the better part of valor): Retreat, drop it all, stick to sci-fi discussions. This is evasion, sure, but at least don't snipe. Re-direct energies to another book, etc.Horrible: Carry on doing what he's been doing. Just seems a big drain of life-energy for less than nothing; seems like he's going backwards.

In the abstract, he can either stay where he is, move forward, or move backward. In sociosexual terms that means staying a Gamma, moving up to Delta, or moving down to Omega.

The Omega response would be to disappear into the wilderness and live as a recluse, reappearing only occasionally to surreptitiously steal food.

The Gamma response isn't really possible. A principle of human action is that a person in suffering will look for a way out, so that a Gamma who repeatedly challenges an Alpha and gets beaten down must eventually change his behavior. (Anyone who is too dysfunctional to change their behavior in this way is properly classified as an Omega, and will likely show the behaviors described for them.)

The Delta response is curiously symbolic. "Delta" represents change, and would require his conscious recognition of the need to change his behavior to change his circumstances. (This realization may require a bit more dolorectic, as per "Throne of Bones".) Speaking in the abstract, this would require him to start showing the behaviors described for Deltas.

But I think I can apply these specifically. In this particular case, Scalzi's first order of business is to stop attacking stronger men. (For some reason, adults take a bit longer to grasp this sort of logic.) Either publicly submit (unlikely), or suffer the kick in the ass as he leaves the party without letting his rage carry him back into another fight.

Next order of business is to admit that he is not the pack leader. Not a master. After a little time and a little soul searching, he may even admit that he's not a prime contender for the position either. The scientific evidence (try, try, try again—then give up) will be difficult to ignore.

At this point, he is already improving as a man. But he will not perceive this or understand it.

Having admitted he doesn't understand the game he's playing, he must endeavor to learn it. After learning must come application. With time, he will understand it. The biblical admonition to act humbly will begin to make sense. He has not earned respect yet, but no longer is he worthy of his erstwhile opponents' contempt.

This will make him, if not happy, then less sad. He will begin to notice his improved lot in life.

To achieve the final goal of this particular exercise, which is to earn respect, he must display the qualities that people respect. As in sexuality, so in sociosexuality: the character traits that people respect are highly consistent across individuals and cultures. Strength, skill, self-respect, business/social acumen, liberality, integrity...but such virtues are acquired with great pain. Strength requires discipline, liberality requires wealth, an so on.

Do not make the mistake of thinking Scalzi's readership at Whatever respects him. They'll jeer with him. They'll squee with him. But they won't say at his funeral, if indeed they even attend his funeral, "There was a man."

(tl;dr)

It's either Frodo the Delta or Gollum the Omega. Not Aragorn the Alpha, or Legolas the Beta, or Gandalf the Sigma.

Mr. Scalzi never ceases to entertain with his "lookatmelookatmeI'mimportant!" antics. Someone who actually was secure wouldn't vent his spleen in a blog post about what some asshat wrote and act all butt-hurt about it.

But then again someone who was actually secure might spend his time writing original fiction, not neatly coiled steaming piles of derivatives of other people's ideas. From Old Man's War to the abysmal Fuzzy Nation to the just-plain-embarrassing Redshirts, Scalzi has managed to build an entire career without one original idea -- that has to be noteworthy. His entire contribution to the genre could be classed under "parody" without too much argument.

But you have to understand Mr. Scalzi's current difficult position, if you want to know why he's getting increasingly strident. First, he's President of SFWA. That sounds like a big deal, and it once was, back when Greg Bear and Ben Bova were running it. After that period, as Larry Niven once told me at a con (and I'm paraphrasing -- it was almost twenty years ago and we were both drunk), they mostly started looking for self-important people whose careers are moving slowly enough so that they have plenty of time to devote to it. It's a shit job, and one that no real, creative SF writer would ever want. But there's always some idiot who lucked into a book deal and can be suckered into it. I'm amazed they haven't gotten to me yet. If someone ever asks you if you'd consider it, tell them that you'd rather write for a living."

Now he's the president of an increasingly-archaic and obsolete institution that exists primarily to act as a barrier-to-entry for aspiring professionals. In a year or so, he won't even have that, and he'll have to make it just on what he gets for online movie reviews (oops! He lost that contract, didn't he?) and his books. Once his office is gone, his blog will lose traffic precipitously and not even his most sycophantic admirers will pay much attention any more.

Let this be a lesson to you, Gentlemen: when you are reluctant to train and practice (and writing is a profession in which both are essential for success) then remember that somewhere someone else IS training and practicing, and when you meet them, you will lose. And then you will become president of SFWA so that the folks who practiced and got good don't have to get bogged down with administrative minutiae, and they can pat you on the head and tell you what an outstanding job you're doing while they go crank out some amazing work . . . and you're reduced to generating false outrage to trolls because it's easier than actually thinking up something clever and entertaining that people want to pay you for.

What advice would you give to the father of a son who has gamma tendencies?

First of all, let him know, contrary to government funded advertising, it does not get better.

He has to make it better himself.

Show him one of John Scalzi's books.

"Look son, this guy is a successful author, and he got elected the president of the world's leading science fiction writers organization. He's well known on the internet. He worked really hard through his struggles in life, grew up in a broken home, and made some academic achievements. He makes more than $100,000 a year selling his books."

"Now here's him, in a dress, holding a crossbow like a lady."

"Now here's the reaction of a lot of people on the internet, making fun of him. He's miserable and embarrassed by it."

"What did he do to deserve this? He didn't learn early on that society is a game, a really fun game if you actually play along, and a game that everybody plays, even if they don't want to or realize it."

"Have you ever wanted to play a game with your friends and there's one guy who breaks the rules or pouts when he doesn't want to play? You know that effect? Sucks, doesn't it. Everybody kind of hates him."

"Well, that's what happened to John Scalzi. He showed up to the game of society, thought that he could just do whatever he felt like, like wearing a dress and making fun of women, and no one would care that he was breaking the rules of the game."

"So, learning the rules of this really fun game is something I know you can do, and you are going to be a lot happier if you give it a try. You don't have to change who you are as a person, just play along, learn to enjoy it, and not ruin it for everyone else who is playing."

It is a game that Scalzi is losing right now (and if he continues to declare his humiliations to be victories, he's assuring himself a lifetime of such victories) but it is one that your son can win. Just knowing that it has rules and it goes on all the time in interpersonal relationships will start to change his course. A key component of gamma is a recalcitrant insistence on pretending such rules do not exist or do not apply.

Omega knows the rules and hates them. Delta knows the rules and can't always keep them straight. Beta knows the rules and plays the team card to his advantage. Alpha wins, ensuring that what is considered defeat by others is viewed as a temporary setback or challenge. Sigma wins whenever the spirit moves him to play, on his terms, when he's not skiing after a naked amputee dwarf down an erupting Mt. Fuji, cracking a whip and snorting powdered deer antlers to see what it feels like.

If Scalzi wanted to "grow" as a Man and develop out of Gamma - how should he be reacting to this situation instead? What would show you that he is "confronting reality" and thereby earn your respect?

Ignore it.

No, really. Ignore it. That would be a good first step. Don't ignore it by getting up at 3:30 am to obsessively check your blogs comment threads and then write a 720 word post detailing the great lengths to which you will go to ignore it. Just, you know, ignore it. Perhaps by ignoring it.

I don't think it's possible and actually addressing real arguments would be expecting far too much. But it would be a start

One can see more of the gamma reality readjustment in his claims that I am embarrassed about taking his rapist claim literally, (I'm not), that I backtracked about that and claimed I knew it was satire (I haven't and didn't), and am laughing at him because some of my readers are trolling his blog, (I'm laughing, but that's not why).

Based on this performance, it doesn't look like he's going to rethink his behavior anytime soon.

Semi OT:Just came across this comment in the hierarchy thread. Quite unintentionally hilarious:

Anonymous said...So do Alpha's and Sigma's lose their rank if they come in contact with another man sexually? I don't think so. As a bi man myself I have been both passive and active with Alpha's and Sigmas in both one-on-one and bi-group situations. These men fit the above alpha and sigma descriptions above and live their lives either openly or discretely bi. AND THERE IS WAY MORE OF THEM THAN YOU THINK! They can get women and men to do their bidding in or out of the bed. They are by no means Lambda though more fearful men and women may say otherwise. Men who are not afraid of cock or pussy and can master both sexes are to me the pinnacle of manhood and by far the most interesting people on the planet. All others are just loud talkers, fence sitters, or just plane boring.

Well ay thid point in order for scalzi to ascend he would need to stop making little reactionary counterpunches and make some sort of decisive stand and stick to it. As VD said, he sodomizes his credibility by saying it doesnt matter before 2 days later writinh another screed about the offenses against him, er, common decency. He needs to acknowledge what was said, make some firm statement then shut up. One such stand wojld be to say he has been ID'd in this taxonomy as gamma, linking to the info related (rather than his normal tactic of feigning ignorance of the frame in which he is cast tosay trolls are unintelligible) own his silly behaviour and say "well he may not be right in his characterization here but yet my reactions were out of frustration towards being attacked" invite anyone interested to discuss the topic at the relevant post at vp/ag saying "I'm not interested in discussing the game topic as it hold no interest but feel free to see yourself." Then simply shut his gob and not characterize his attackers in ways that only convince people who already agree with him. If theres no ammunition then there won't be much to talk about.

Now, I've never seen a gamma do this, but I know a young omega who basically responded sort of like this to a community college class that teased him.

I think Betas, Deltas and Omegas all share fundamentally the same brain structure and are just differentiated by varying degrees of looks, strength, health and intelligence. So I think it's possible for them to move up on that scale by dedicating themselves to self improvement.

Gammas I believe have a fundamental brain structure difference. Something happened (or didn't happen) at some critical stage of brain development and male-pattern thinking areas never developed in them. They exhibit female-pattern thinking, and I don't think they can ever really change that.

FWIw, I also think Alphas and Sigmas have a fundamental brain structure difference from "Standards" (B,D,O) in that they have a much stronger desire to impose their will on the world around them (I call them "Willfuls"). I'm not sure if Standards can develop this through effort. It may be possible, but I don't know.

What advice would you give to the father of a son who has gamma tendencies? My son is physically attractive, but naturally introspective and introverted.* I can see kids wanting to like him, but he pushes them away.

Again, not sure, but I'd start with making sure he ate no soy and got plenty of protein and fats in his diet, and limit the carbs. Soy (plant estrogen) probably confuses a male body. Lift weights too - that increases testosterone.

Good question by Blogreader, and one that is relevant to me as I'm trying to overcome my own gamma tendencies.

First things first: knock off the RSHD bullshit. Either call out your opponent by name and confront him directly, or keep your mouth shut. It's difficult to confront one's own failings, but if your opponent has a good point, acknowledge it and use it to improve yourself.

And for crying out loud, never, ever use the word "Squee" unless you're quoting someone else.

Why all the hate for cats? It's not the cat; it's what you do with the cat. If you cut its balls off, declaw it, and give it a FB page...yeah that's gay. If you keep it outside, teach it to hunt, and use it to keep other pests away from your domicile; that's not so gay. That's having a killer which is also nice to pet.

If I were Scalzi and I wanted to raise my status, I would accuse Vox of being a coward to his face. I would challenge him to a MMA style fight at a reputable venue in the United States and hold his feet to the fire to attend. I would capitalize on Vox's refusal to subject himself to the TSA as evidence of his cowardice and beat that drum with all my might. Should Vox show up, I would battle him with all my might and hope for a puncher's chance but I think the simple act of entering the ring would bolster my standing especially if Vox visually outmatches me and especially if he outweighs me.

Scalzi already did that Mr. Nightstick, except that his combat of choice was book promo contest. It ended up 1-1. Vox won the Musclebound Flaming Sword division. Scalzi took top honors in the Squishy Drag Queen portion.

One would think that a crossbow would have provided an advantage over a saber, but unsurprisingly, Scalzi didn't know how to cock it.

Jack AmokGammas I believe have a fundamental brain structure difference.

I need more convincing. Perhaps many develop a special "platonic ladybrain" at some point, and get swept off their feet by a pre-op tranny to live happily ever after. But I do know a gamma or two who eventually dumped the toad harem and the goddess worship and matured to delta.

the police-state matriarchy isnt maintained just by skreeching, empowered, selfish women, using the government to gobble up male power, wealth, resources, and agency

the male counterpart to Team Woman is the enabling male, and they are legion, both on the left and right of the ideopolitical spectrum

the old u.s.s.r. operated on the same principle -- all totalitarian regimes do -- take the third-rate men, and award them first-rate status for adherence to the gulag, and to its greeds and iniquities

these men, by the millions, thus leapfrog over their betters, not by merit or accomplishment, but by subservience to the Sistem -- whether as a typically castrated husband, a functionary in the corporate police-state, a media shill, a beltway badass, or any of the other slots that have been filled by these wannabe-men for fifty years now

the larger culture, devoid of its best men and boys, of course slowly dies, agonizingly, in in self-deceit . . . but not before the scalzis of the left AND right live their comfy, protected, fake lives, feeding off the disenfranchisement and suffering of their betters

this tyranny of the mediocre (and worse) is always extant in rotting cultures -- Rome Number One dissipated and croaked (temporarily) for much the same reasons

But I do know a gamma or two who eventually dumped the toad harem and the goddess worship

A couple clarifying questions then:

Did they drop the solipsism and passive-aggressive behavior too?

When they discussed whatever problems they may be having, did they listen when people offered possible solutions, or did they get pissy and indicate what they really wanted to do was vent and commiserate in their misery?

When they discussed whatever problems they may be having, did they listen when people offered possible solutions, or did they get pissy and indicate what they really wanted to do was vent and commiserate in their misery?

Ah-ha. An even better question. One does listen well - he's almost a different guy from when I first met him decades ago - he also used to be an atheist but isn't now. But the others that I am thinking of are wallowers.

All others are just loud talkers, fence sitters, or just plane boring.

People who are boring in a non-Euclidean way are much better.

Why all the hate for cats?

A good friend of mine despises cats, and with him, at least, the reason is apparent. Cats aren't herd animals, they enjoy solitude, they're completely indifferent to the needs and desires of others unless those needs and desires coincide with their own, and they're skilled cruelty artists. In this respect, my friend is quite cat-like, and since cats don't tend to like each other, he doesn't like them. Once he realized this, however, his loathing of cats abated somewhat.

As for killing birds, who cares? They're swimming in dangerous bacteria and virii, and are a significant transmission vector for tick- and mosquito-borne diseases.

Daniel, I take that as good news then. Brains can be salvaged with work. Excellent.

As to cats, since our cat has gotten too old to hunt, the yard is overrun with moles. The dog isn't interested in the moles, he goes after rabbits. Now that the cat is retired*, the yard is nothing but mole hills.

* actually, from the look of her, I think she's become undead. She was never actually the most friendly or good looking of cats, but now she looks like a feline lich. The dog is 7x her weight, but has a dread fear of her.

I'm going to correct something I wrote above.I wrote that his best option would be to try to engage in a 'real' argument about issues and drop the sniping and "just trust that VD and others will be true to their words and let the rabbit stuff go and argue those points." But that last errantly implies that VD and others have promised or guaranteed to engage with this guy if only he "drops" the rabbit stuff. It occurs to me that that has not been guaranteed or promised or anything. That it's not a hugbox.

I mean, who cares what Scalzi thinks about homophobia? And when did VD promise him an extended tutorial on anything? Maybe the most interesting thing for VD about Scalz is his floundering around and sniping. So, correction.

Further, if he's libeled VD and others, or attempted to, he should apologize for that without excuses. That should be the first thing.

The "admit he's wrong" answers are wrong. Admitting he's wrong is a good thing in itself. But he's gotta larn to fight. You can be a rabbit and right, and you can be a man and wrong. Confronting Vox directly would be a step. Engaging logically rather than emotively would be a step.

But declaring defeat while lying bleeding on the mat is only marginally better than claiming victory while lying bleeding on the mat. Scalzi needs two things: the ability to stand up to his foes, and the ability to stand up to his Warren. A straight-up fight, even for the wrong side, is better than a mere admission of defeat.

Hitting the Gym and learning Krav would help on a purely hormonal level.

Jack AmokI take that as good news then. Brains can be salvaged with work. Excellent.

Better news perhaps than you proposed, but not by much. I just realized that the pool of improved gammas that I know personally is much smaller than I assumed it to be.

But declaring defeat while lying bleeding on the mat is only marginally better than claiming victory while lying bleeding on the mat. Scalzi needs two things: the ability to stand up to his foes, and the ability to stand up to his Warren. A straight-up fight, even for the wrong side, is better than a mere admission of defeat.

Hitting the Gym and learning Krav would help on a purely hormonal level.

I disagree strongly with part of what you say, and agree with the rest. First, there's a world of difference between the defeated man who accepts it and gets up to fight another day and the defeated man who mistakes his concussion and wounds for the hallmarks of victory.

Second, Jim C. Hines, Scalzi's partner in crossbow crime, who quit writing his funny goblin books because his girl books and brave opposition to rape were much more popular, hits the gym and takes some sort of martial arts.

The gym does not destroy the gamma. I know plenty who honestly don't realize that touch-point martial arts and full contact, no-holds martial arts are two different things. I know plenty who sit on a bike or walk a treadmill or fiddle with interesting machinery in the gym. The gamma who decides "I'm going to go to the gym" isn't typically going to think to work out like a man.

They will think: well, women are smart, and women don't like musclebound thugs. I don't want to look like a musclebound thug. I want to be conscientious about my health, not vain. They'll wander around on a treadmill, watch CNN, and feel good about their civic duty. They'll run a 5k or something and tell everyone about how they ran a 5k.

Now the fighting part is right, but I think it is more important that he first admit defeat and exercise his first honest realization to the max. Not to wallow in it, but to begin to understand what it really means to win.

The gamma lives in a participation ribbon factory, and bandages his wounds with them. Until he stops pinning them to his wall as certificates of achievement, he can never, ever comprehend what it means to really fight for a damned thing.

Besides, you just know he'd sign up for the Krav Maga Ladies Auxilliary Empowerment Course at the nursing home, instead.

I like Scalzi's writing and always buy his new stuff - his serialized novel coming out right now is really good so far, and worth Kindle-ing... He generally plays interestingly with mild to moderately hard sci fi thoughts, a somewhat gifted writer... but he comes off as a mangina in his blogging persona. I wish it weren't so. It doesn't wreck his books for me but it always makes me sigh a bit when I buy one...

I agree that Scalzi isn't a bad Sci-Fi writer and I buy his work, but dude is total pussy. I live one town over from him in Ohio and would gladly organize a cage fight between Scalzi and Vox. Who's in?

"the larger culture, devoid of its best men and boys, of course slowly dies, agonizingly, in in self-deceit . . . but not before the scalzis of the left AND right live their comfy, protected, fake lives, feeding off the disenfranchisement and suffering of their betters

this tyranny of the mediocre (and worse) is always extant in rotting cultures -- Rome Number One dissipated and croaked (temporarily) for much the same reasons"

Yeah Gibbon's take on Justinian and Belisarius is very much in agreement with that and worth checking out.

I've slowly come to the realization that our present chicks digging jerks is an instinctive attempt to correct this dynamic. If the nice guys are Scalzis, they'll need to finish last if we're to survive and thrive.

"FWIw, I also think Alphas and Sigmas have a fundamental brain structure difference from "Standards" (B,D,O) in that they have a much stronger desire to impose their will on the world around them (I call them "Willfuls"). I'm not sure if Standards can develop this through effort. It may be possible, but I don't know."

Gammas are the failed willfuls.

The answer for them is not to become beta/delta, it's to dedicate themselves to improving their socio-sexual performance* until they suck less.

* - as willfuls, they do have experience with such dedication, even if its been squandered on anti-game and honing their passive-aggression in the past

If Scalzi wanted to "grow" as a Man and develop out of Gamma - how should he be reacting to this situation instead?

I have little optimism for some of the solutions suggested here that are too cognitive. I think one's place in the sociosexual hierarchy comes mainly from the limbic system and brain stem, and one's thoughts and beliefs follow. Yes, taking the red pill is important, but cerebral approaches can only go so far.

My main goal now is to increase my dominant and aggressive actions. High-intensity workouts can help. Learning how to box or fight, and actually fighting, can help. Learning how to physically escalate more rapidly with eligible women, and forcing yourself to do it with less hesitation, can help. Not letting go of opportunities for minor confrontations over rudeness and bad service can help.

A key goal if you want to rise in the hierarchy is to expand the range of things you feel entitled to do and say. When you feel like an action is above your place, that's your opportunity to grow. Do the action. Work through it until you feel entitled to act that way.

Of course, this can backfire if the action is genuinely foolish or wrong; it helps to have guidance from somebody up the hierarchy. Some guys try to bluff and bravado their way up the hierarchy, and eventually find their limits. But they still wind up a little higher than they would have if they hadn't tried.

Most guys find their place by their late teens and settle into it. Sometimes the changes a man makes later in life open the door to a higher spot--if he has the will to return to that mode of teenage exploration of one's limits. (Which is why omegas may have a better shot of rising than gammas--nothing to lose, everything to gain.)

So would you say in order to get out of the state of being a gamma...just live your life truthfully. Don't change who you are because somebody has a different opinion. Be outcome independent.

These are things are the effects, and rising up the hierarchy is the cause; not the other way around.

Bro, what's with giving this faggot any blog time? Even in the strange parallel world where Faggot McCat actually makes any worthy critiques, his style of writing and the purpose behind the post is exactly why his comment threads turn into alpha game comment wars. I know I used the very same ad hominem attack, i guess that makes me a dick. Too bad.

Seriously though, just stop giving him blog time, I hate seeing this guy on my rss feed. It's also really beta to just bitch at each other. This is the Internet, hes not going to change, your just going to make his ego become more and more defensive and arrogant. This is not a virtous path. I cant really judge you though, I recognize a lot of the gamma traits whenever I'm particularly passive (fuck manic depression) and the post was informative, I'd recommend just having lots of example of gamma behavior and making case by case points of what not to do. That way if he looks at it he can't say your directly calling him out without admitting he embodies said traits.

In the spirit of the comment thread here's my gamma to not faggot plan1. Immediately make my last post on my online personas admitting I've been wasting my time with my beliefs and that my close minded attitude was willfully ignorant and not virtous at all. I'd be sure to let my readers know that if they agree with anything I've posted before then they have a memetic infection and should do some introspection.2. Make a new blog and reach out to the manosphere letting people know I've been a giant faggot and now I'm going to chronicle my journey back to sanity.3. I'd start reading more, mostly philosophy and informative texts, and get to the gym. I'd make steps to alter the style of my life.4. I'd immediately throw myself into game and cut m teeth on the scary sluts of modern American women, with the hope of getting a hot foreign wife eventually5. Find something I can work towards and work my ass off. 6. Make some bro friends7.???8. Profit

On that note mental illness sucks dick, gamma traits make you feel like shit, and manly man shit like lifting kettle bells and fucking hotties make everything better.

After you've decided you want to be in control instead of being a viction, the first decision is first whether you want to play. Sigmas don't play unless they wish to for a while. Alphas play and win, but win because they do the things necessary to win as a continuous policy. Sigmas only do so strategically and tactically - they wish to win one battle or simply to play one round.

Blackjack players need to learn to count cards. Businessmen need to know how to win at their business. They fight against mathematics or nature which shows no mercy. If someone wants to upgrade from Gamma, they need to play to win. If they keep up the whiny, passive-agressive stuff, they will keep losing. They will keep passing Go and getting $200, but never build a hotel - ever. Never own all 4 railroads or both utilities.

I would note that the Alpha can be equally confused by the Sigma. They aren't used to anyone who is able to reject or ignore the hierarchy. The Alpha commands. The Gamma either obeys or acts passive-agressively. The Sigma just shrugs, or plays an unexpected move - something not in the rules of "Game" - in fact it seems they prefer to do the unexpected. It can be very confusing since the Alpha is trying to establish the hierarchy since he is near the apex, so the other should be a competing Alpha or a subservient Beta or Gamma. Yet a Sigma breaks or ignores the rules so can't be quantified, at least not in that way.

redlegben said: Why all the hate for cats? It's not the cat; it's what you do with the cat. If you cut its balls off, declaw it, and give it a FB page...yeah that's gay. If you keep it outside, teach it to hunt, and use it to keep other pests away from your domicile; that's not so gay. That's having a killer which is also nice to pet.

----Well said, Sir. I am a classic Beta & have two trained killers myself. House is now always free of mice, moles, & annoying crickets. Nothing Gamma about that. Even the Rabbits stay away...lol.

Dudes who go out of their way to run over innocent animals have far bigger issues than can be easily/briefly discussed here. I appreciate you bringing some maturity to the discussion, Sir. Thank you.

----We can't ALWAYS be mature though, right? I live on the north side of Denver, CO. I have been known to make jokes about murdering cats.....just to annoy my ex wife & because it's funny to watch all the "People's Republic of Boulder" Hippie Panty-waste PETA A$$holes facial expressions when I do. But in all honesty, cats and dogs rock, Man.

Whoa whoa whoa! Alpha or Sigma? That's way jumping the gun! Gamma to delta is an enormous leap, one that very few ever make. I don't see how he could even conceive of alpha (correctly), much less aspire to it.

Baby steps.

A gamma who attempts to synthesize alpha is more than likely going to turn out doing something really embarrassing, like putting on a dress and hoisting an uncocked crossbow at the camera.

See? thinks gamma. I'm so dominant and comfortable in my sexuality and this move is going to finally prove it to everyone.

"I agree that Scalzi isn't a bad Sci-Fi writer and I buy his work, but dude is total pussy. I live one town over from him in Ohio and would gladly organize a cage fight between Scalzi and Vox. Who's in?"

A true alpha, I am told, would aspire to a cage match and a fight to the death, although I suppose the winner would get shot by his one of his opponents toadies. Some would claim a win-win.

What's the difference between Sigma and Omega? Both operate outside of the system and, to some extent, are not part of the system? Now, I initially did not like the Roissy "it's all about the poon you (can/could) pull" fixation on the rankings, but, upon reflection, that's the only significant difference between the two that I can see. Both operate largely alone, but the Sigma could pull non-warpigs if he tried whereas Omega never could. Is that the only difference?

I suspect another difference is that the Sigma could, by necessity and forcing himself to, work the hierarchy, accrue beta lieutenants and delta troops, for whatever necessary purpose.

He would likely abandon them at the first reasonable opportunity though.

Omega to Sigma is far from a single step however. Vox says that Delta encompasses all the transitional forms, whether between Omega and Sigma or Gamma and Beta. That leaves no distinction between Sigma-leaning Deltas and Beta-leaning Deltas, but I am told that fussing about that detail is a 'spergy signifier. ;P

Alphas and Sigmas both understand the socio hierarchy. They understand it exists, and they understand how it operates. The difference is that Alphas decide to pay the costs of playing by the rules in order to reap the rewards within the system, while Sigmas give up the inherent rewards of the system for the freedom to operate outside of it.

Put another way, Alpha and Sigma make different trade-offs in scope vs depth of influence (alphas trade depth of influence for wider scope, Sigmas accept a narrower scope in order to have greater depth).

All other categories are either unaware of the hierarchy, or unaware of the rules by which it operates.

HtG and Anon, that's what I'm saying. Know the cat's role. Don't make it a eunuch. Use it for what it is meant to do. Kill rodents and vermin. They are executioners to command at my will. A dog can't think for itself. A cat is a free thinker. I want free will thinkers that kill according to my plan. I might take up mentoring a bobcat in the future.

"..."FWIw, I also think Alphas and Sigmas have a fundamental brain structure difference from "Standards" (B,D,O) in that they have a much stronger desire to impose their will on the world around them (I call them "Willfuls"). I'm not sure if Standards can develop this through effort. It may be possible, but I don't know."

Gammas are the failed willfuls.

The answer for them is not to become beta/delta, it's to dedicate themselves to improving their socio-sexual performance* until they suck less.

* - as willfuls, they do have experience with such dedication, even if its been squandered on anti-game and honing their passive-aggression in the past ..."

*****************************************************************

This made me think of Dostoevsky's "Underground Man", the first and still finest portrayal of the gamma type in all literature